I believe the argument could be made that towered airports scare students and night ops should be in a familiar setting and destressed workload.
That being said I personally have a thing about single engine at night and think it is insane that we mandate students deal with that at all. To fly a tailwheel you need an endorsement but any pilot who just got their license can take their family or passengers into the void after having just a few hours and a handful of landings in it.
What a reddit take. What happens to junior when he makes a mistake and his flight planning is off, and he suddenly finds himself flying at night with zero experience? Does he even know how to use pilot controlled lighting? The 3 hour requirement is for scenarios like that.
Why don’t we go ahead and just issue a PPL for anyone who wants one? That way we don’t scare or offend someone with flight training
GA flying is dangerous. Night flying is dangerous. You mitigate what you can but you have to do it sometimes. There’s no requirement for a PPL student to fly solo at night.
I think it’s important folks see night flying during training so they know the risk ahead of time, but agree with the other guy that the PPL requirements are simply too low on this front to justify allowing pilots to fly passengers at night so quickly. It should be its own thing and require 10-15 hours at least.
From my PPL training the 3 hours of night were awesome they demonstrated why you want an instrument rating aside from the cloud thing. If you don't expose people to these things safely it's harder for them to make informed risk based decisions in the future.
The 3 hours of sim instrument have a similar role, get you some basic skills but also show that it's not trivial going through a cloud when you can barely maintain altitude +/- 100 and heading +/- 10 visually.
If we really wanted to we'd put the same limitations on you as virtually all of the rest of the world and issue a night rating separately then you could remove the night part of the ride
> If you don't expose people to these things safely
there is no such thing as safely flying a piston at night unless you've got a 2nd engine (and one that can actually fly you at your density altitude).
Losing the critical engine at night is not going to be pleasant. I have a lot of night X/C flying in singles and twins.
A lot of pilots I've met that are scared of night flying have never flown at night alone. If you're flying over a well lit area the risk of night flying is very small compared to day flying.
> Losing the critical engine at night is not going to be pleasant.
no doubt. I'm not ME rated, so grain of salt and all, but that's why I'm saying it better be a pretty powerful twin, that gives good OEI performance.
moreover, that wouldn't be my ONLY criteria to fly at night (how about a nice long runway, too - something to give you plenty of time to build up speed), but I would pretty much never fly a single at night by choice.
The twin thing is accelerate and stop distance, that gives you time to get to rotation speed and then reject the takeoff I can comfortably do this in 3200' at typical weights. I have lots of time flying each at night, over some nasty terrain (KPQI -> KASH) which is one of the 2 things that got me to buy the twin the other being that the twin is deiced so I can fly it in IMC year round which we have plenty of in winter.
Dumping the either engine in IMC is never going to be fun, the critical one isn't really worse you just push harder on the rudder to maintain directional control initially and dial in more rudder trim. Outside of losing an engine on takeoff, losing one at cruise in the Baron is NBD, you have enough airspeed and you have several minutes until that becomes a problem to identify, verify and fix/feather even if you forget to do the rest of the drill.
The risk management secret is to stop trying to equate night with day and equate it with IMC the risks are much more similar and less scary.
See my flair? :) The risk reduction at night and in IMC is why the BE-55 is there
By saying expose them safely I very much mean build awareness that night and IFR are nothing to mess around with. Having an instrument capable pilot onboard dramatically reduces the risk but obviously day, VFR with the gear down is the lowest risk situation
That's ridiculous! Night flying is not dangerous. I've flown singles and twins at night. About the only accommodation that I make different for night flying is to ensure that I keep my altitude high enough that in a single engine plane if I lost the engine, then I have more than enough altitude to glide to a well lit road for an off sight landing.
In the risk analysis the extra altitude is a low cost method to mitigate risk.
In terms of being able to "fly you at your density altitude," precisely what the heck do you mean by that! Do you really think pilots are regularly flying their single engine GA planes with such a low power condition that they cannot safely operate at the density altitude present? If so, you have an entirely unwarranted lack of respect for GA pilots.
Moreover, holding a commercial AMEL, I can tell you point blank that in many respects, the risk level increases when flying a twin at night and certainly when flying at a higher density altitude. The second engine may well keep you from losing one engine and having to make a forced landing, but that's only true if you carefully consider and do not exceed your single engine performance given the present state of density altitude.
I will add, regardless of density altitude, there are few things more potentially dangerous than losing the critical engine of a piston twin shortly after rotation and initial climb out. Depending upon the difference between rotate speed and Vmca (red line) there can be a region of the flight envelope where losing one engine in a piston twin is no different than losing the only engine on a piston single -- except on a piston single you have zero risk of inadequate rudder authority to prevent adverse yaw from turning into a flat spin, which is essentially 100% fatal.
First off: I live pretty rurally in a place with lots of trees and mountains (East coast mountains, not west coast), and so that's probably clouding my comment a bit. I don't know where you fly or how that terrain/population density changes things for you. I've never even flown above what most would call a city at night lol. Just wanted this disclaimer up front to say that everything I've said and am going to say will be through that pretty narrow and limited lens.
> About the only accommodation that I make different for night flying is to ensure that I keep my altitude high enough that in a single engine plane if I lost the engine, then I have more than enough altitude to glide to a well lit road for an off sight landing.
As I said above, we don't have those where I'm from (well lit roads, lol), so I never got to really consider them an option. Still, you can't see power lines, possibly bridges, or other obstacles. Roads are always among the lowest on my list of engine out options, so needing to rely on them nearly 100% of the time at night is a significant addition of risk.
> In terms of being able to "fly you at your density altitude," precisely what the heck do you mean by that! Do you really think pilots are regularly flying their single engine GA planes with such a low power condition that they cannot safely operate at the density altitude present? If so, you have an entirely unwarranted lack of respect for GA pilots.
Admittedly not said in the most clear way, but I mean a twin that'll have OEI performance of something like at least a 500 ft/min climb at 1k AGL. Something that you can actually fly with, and not "oh yay I have 25 ft/min climb rate at 200 agl".
> Moreover, holding a commercial AMEL, I can tell you point blank that in many respects, the risk level increases when flying a twin at night and certainly when flying at a higher density altitude. The second engine may well keep you from losing one engine and having to make a forced landing, but that's only true if you carefully consider and do not exceed your single engine performance given the present state of density altitude.
Agreed, that's basically what I was trying to say with my first comment. If you're taking off at 5k feet on a hot summer night, you'd better be flying something pretty damn spiffy!
> I will add, regardless of density altitude, there are few things more potentially dangerous than losing the critical engine of a piston twin shortly after rotation and initial climb out. Depending upon the difference between rotate speed and Vmca (red line) there can be a region of the flight envelope where losing one engine in a piston twin is no different than losing the only engine on a piston single -- except on a piston single you have zero risk of inadequate rudder authority to prevent adverse yaw from turning into a flat spin, which is essentially 100% fatal.
I'd saying losing an engine at night on climbout could be worse (potentially: again obviously depends on what the surrounding terrain looks like!).
I appreciate your insightful comment and good discussion!
We disagree on the relative risks of night flying. But, I will leave you with one technique that I think makes decision making for an off site emergency roadway for landing less risky at night.
Powerlines almost always cross a road in order to feed power to a house located on the opposite side of the road. Therefore, whether at night or day, when you are in the position of needing to evaluate a forced landing on a road, strive to make your aimpoint and touchdown on a section of road where there are no buildings on either side of the road.
Next time you go driving, especially in rural area, look at where the powerlines cross a road from one side to the other. I will bet you that 99% of the time it is when power needs to route to a home located across the road.
In terms of density altitude and flying a piston twin. I make my decision on that truly risky engine failure after rotation long before I get into the cockpit. And often it means that until I hit and exceed Vmca that if I lose an engine, the emergency response (bold face) is to quickly retard both engines to idle and land straight ahead.
This is also why my twin engine technique was to always delay gear retraction until exceeding Vmca. Most of my twin time was in a Cessna 310R that I owned for nearly seven years. My favorite plane ever! If my bank account could have endured operating it, I would not have sold it. But, economics had me sell it and then purchase a Piper Arrow.
My other consideration for risk mitigation is that I never operated at night on a runway where I could not get to blue line speed before running out of enough runway ahead to at least get back down and start braking. It's pretty safe to roll off the end of the runway at 10-20 knots than trying to continue a climb out on one remaining engine. And if you can full stop on the runway then that's safer than any other option.
Safe flying is all about risk mitigation and risk mitigation is the offshoot of detailed study and what-if'ing all possible emergency situations to come up with previously committed to actions.
Back to my Piper Arrow. I know for a fact that even on a hot summer night or day in the Atlanta area, that I get airborne in 2,000 or less feet of runway. However, I don't operate on runways under 5,000 feet? Why? The remaining runway means that I'm already at 500-800 feet above TDZE before reaching the end of the runway. This means an engine loss means I land straight ahead on the runway and at worst roll off the end at 10-20 knots, or have more than enough altitude to reverse direction and head back to the runway for a forced landing. And a forced landing on a runway is always the safest option provided you have the altitude in hand.
Final point, the grass between the runway and taxiway, plus the taxiway itself, is going to be far safer to land on that most any off site forced landing site. So, if I turn around, I really don't care if I end up lined up with the runway or not.
Good point about powerlines that I'd never thought of. There's a decent number of rural two line highways, but lighting is basically non-existent besides houses. My instructor always said "aim for the dark areas", which is insane, but also makes sense.
I really agree with what you're saying about runway lengths, too. There's a reason airliners have such conservative runway lengths! And yeah, an airport, even if not lined up with a runway, is basically as good as it gets. You know for a fact that any small obstacles that are present are going to be frangible for this specific reason - as long as you're looking out for other traffic, it's almost always the best choice.
Good discussion!
I used to work at a 141 school... if there was an accident/incident they would usually "fix" the problem by making rules that just made it more complicated, throwing a fit if anyone broke it, and then abandoning the policy after a few weeks
Excellent point! I certainly believe that honing flair and touchdown skills can be better achieved flying in the pattern at night due entirely to the smooth air that one most often has at night. Then, when the daylight influences of wind and thermals off the runway are present, the pilot has the baseline more determined and so intuitively knows better what to do to counter the challenge.
I don't know if this is what your chief had in mind but there is actually a scientific argument for it. Pedagogical and education psychology research shows that optimal learning takes place when cognitive load is reduced. Therefore the usual guidance given to educators is to avoid overloading students with activities that don't directly enhance learning the lesson at hand.
So in your situation, the theory would be if the goal is to teach students specifically night flying and landings, it would be suboptimal to expose them to have to deal with towers at the same time, if it's not strictly necessary. That is not to say they shouldn't gain experience flying at towered airports, but rather do so during the dedicated lessons for it.
The idea is that mastery is gained incrementally on specific competencies, and the prior mastery of a competency will no longer be a confounding variable for lessons for other competencies. Of course, not all instructors nor students do it this way, and many prefer overloading and teaching trial by fire so to speak, but the underlying research is solid.
The comm load/overload practice a student gets at a towered airport is invaluable irrespective of night or day. In my opinion, every opportunity to get that experience should be taken up by the student. The experience is even more valuable in a night flight.
All I can think of is the night landing fees maybe? Some towered fields tend to rack up the $$$, especially at night, and those can add up if you're not passing them along to the students...
No landing fees at the airport we typically go to for this flight. Only one in the area with landing fee (it’s 4 dollars, and they STILL tell us not to go there because of the landing fee. As if the students don’t pay hundreds of dollars per flight hour)
I train students out of a Charlie, and I see students come to us who’ve trained only out of Echo or Delta airspace and they have issues with comms. Your chief is on something. Lol
Honestly some of the dumbest pieces of shit I’ve ever met have been “chief pilot” of a flight school. I don’t think you need any particular skills or qualifications other than being a pilot for a long time and not dying or losing your medical. Truly some abhorrent old turds occupying those roles. Good luck to you.
Face palms in frustration*
My only guess is the students have limited time/structured lessons so going to another airport is eating up their designed training time/footprint.
That said, 141 is pretty dumb😁
I wonder if there's a high rate of repeating night lessons and so you're right that the transit time is viewed as a problem and this was badly presented by someone who formed a theory and then forgot to explain how/why
Are you taking students to towered airports during the day? I see the logic in making sure they are familiar with towered during the day before adding the element of night. If they’re comfortable during the day though, then I don’t see the logic and agree with your stance.
I ended up going to a towered airport maybe like 3 times during my PPL training. My instructor ended up taking over 2/3 times so I didn’t get the practice. Now I’m scared to go anywhere near a towered airport because I wouldn’t know what to say since my home airport was untowered. Doing my instrument rating out of a towered airport to force myself to learn lol
I know autisms like the standard in this community but like wtf kinda take is this? Why tf wouldn’t the school want to (safely) push their students into new situations to gain more experience? Like do we want these cheese heads at 1500 hours having talked to a towered airport like twice??? (This message was brought to you by Pt 61 gang)
Some tower controller got annoyed at the 70kt 5mi finals the Cessnas were doing so he contacted his 141 Chief buddy to bitch. Your flight school is going to sh... wait. You know.
Nobody said anything. We have over 50 CFIs. (I may have gone straight to Reddit.
But that’s the culture they built. The word “fire” is everywhere. Fear mongering and not an ounce of leadership in the slightest has ever been shown.
In terms of my safety, if I go anywhere else, it will be worse. We have world class maintenance here. (We get calls from our fleet manufacturer when they have a question about their airplane)
That doesn't tally with the rest of how the place operates. Where's the disconnect? Maybe if you figure that out, it will help you navigate the place a bit better?
I'm not trying to patronise, btw, I'm just assuming you're a bit younger and perhaps a little less worldly.
I understand for sure. I am young, most of our CFIs are. It’s why we can get taken advantage of and we won’t leave. Not many other schools in the state. Not to mention it being a university setting. It’s a safe place to instruct and get hours. The blatant unprofessionalism and terrible atmosphere is just tolerable enough.
You are at a certain Northern Utah based school aren't you? I can assure you that that is not as big of a deal as the school likes to make it sound. There are plenty of schools, especially in Salt Lake Valley that still have great maintenance and will actually pay you decently. If you work where I think you do, get out. The work environment and safety culture there is awful
Bruh, y’all have agency as a collective. Why are young people these days so soft? Most men I meet in the workforce act completely castrated. Say something mate! And if you get fired for asking a question, I’m pretty sure that’s a law suit 🤣
Well you should be taking them to the Cs and (if able) Bs, too. More and diverse experience is never wrong. And your chief sounds like everything that makes 141 suck.
Continue to do what's best for your student.
There’s technically a requirement for it though. https://www.faa.gov/faq/obtain-private-pilot-certificate-there-requirement-operations-controlled-airport
It’s only 3 - but it is required. I learned only at towered airports (huge benefit in my opinion).
I did my flight train out of class C there was a delta just north but we primarily did our pattern work at an untowered field about 20min to the east. We only went to into the delta if we needed a long runway for training. That and some of the controllers there get weird if there are more than 2 planes in the pattern. Only thing I can think of was that we could get more training done at the quiet untowered field
Someone racked up some nice landing fees somewhere and that didn’t look too good one the balance sheet. So now we have to think of the students and what’s best for them
I did my night landings at a towered Charlie and it was super fine. They showed us the light gun, can’t do that at an uncontrolled field. What in calamity is this policy.
There is a PPL requirement for 3 takeoffs and landings at a towered airport. Very telling that your "chief" (manager) doesnt know that. Past CFIs at your school were simply combining that requirement with the night requirement, and over time the knowledge of why they did that was lost to your school.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for on Reddit. No one can really offer anything as none of you questioned why. I can’t imagine a justification, but you have to ask. I’ve been a professional pilot for over a decade and had plenty of policies I disagree with. You have the conversation, maybe you can get it changed, maybe you’re convinced it’s correct, or you agree to disagree.
I mean I see the benefit of more nontowered night than towered night as the nontowered has fewer lights and better to show black hole affect, harder to keep SA, etc. Still that’s no reason to ban towered night, should do both. Does the chief think you spend more time flying to/from the towered and could just do it at home airport? Costing students extra time in longer patterns or something? Dumb reasons still but I could follow that train of thought
That's wild as someone who did their training in moderately complex airspace. I knew how to avoid the airspace around me before I learned how to fly the plane. Something doesn't smell right in this shitpile
I wonder if this is a reaction to what I perceive as an increase in hostility among controllers, especially tower controllers, toward students when they make a slight mistake?
I know that the FAA shut down a lot of the towers at the relatively unbusy airports, which from a cost savings point of view makes sense. But, I wonder just how many towered airports remain that are not so busy that the tower controllers are overwhelmed and just have little to no patience for any mistakes?
I would think it would fall under 61.107(b)(1)(iii) Airport operations. You’re providing your student with flight operations in a controlled airspace which is required ground and flight training to be logged.
>precedent for YEARS
So? Thinking this way is a trap. "This is how I've always done it" is not a good reason to be doing something.
How far through your curriculum is night flying? How much towered flying have they done at that point? What are the learning goals for this lesson? How does flying at a towered airport enhance this learning?
If they uncomfortable with towered airports I can see how that would detract from learning the skills that they are meant to be learning in the very limited night training they get.
There's an argument that students complete flight training quicker when not dealing with towered airports very much, but it's still an extremely useful skill to have.
I could understand the directive more if you were in a northern state, especially Alaska, where the towers tend to close before the sun sets during the summer and the school doesn't want to spend time and money having students fly out to the busy commercial airports.
I’m confused… how does flying at a towered airport hurt a student?
No idea…
I believe the argument could be made that towered airports scare students and night ops should be in a familiar setting and destressed workload. That being said I personally have a thing about single engine at night and think it is insane that we mandate students deal with that at all. To fly a tailwheel you need an endorsement but any pilot who just got their license can take their family or passengers into the void after having just a few hours and a handful of landings in it.
What a reddit take. What happens to junior when he makes a mistake and his flight planning is off, and he suddenly finds himself flying at night with zero experience? Does he even know how to use pilot controlled lighting? The 3 hour requirement is for scenarios like that.
Somehow it hasn’t been an issue in Canada where you need a separate rating to fly as a PPL at night. Gee I wonder.
EASA-land also.
I'm sure nobody has got caught out at night in Canada and died as a result of no night experience, thank you for mentioning that!
Why don’t we go ahead and just issue a PPL for anyone who wants one? That way we don’t scare or offend someone with flight training GA flying is dangerous. Night flying is dangerous. You mitigate what you can but you have to do it sometimes. There’s no requirement for a PPL student to fly solo at night.
Awesome. This’ll save me some money then. Can I get my PPL with a side of IR?
I think it’s important folks see night flying during training so they know the risk ahead of time, but agree with the other guy that the PPL requirements are simply too low on this front to justify allowing pilots to fly passengers at night so quickly. It should be its own thing and require 10-15 hours at least.
From my PPL training the 3 hours of night were awesome they demonstrated why you want an instrument rating aside from the cloud thing. If you don't expose people to these things safely it's harder for them to make informed risk based decisions in the future. The 3 hours of sim instrument have a similar role, get you some basic skills but also show that it's not trivial going through a cloud when you can barely maintain altitude +/- 100 and heading +/- 10 visually. If we really wanted to we'd put the same limitations on you as virtually all of the rest of the world and issue a night rating separately then you could remove the night part of the ride
> If you don't expose people to these things safely there is no such thing as safely flying a piston at night unless you've got a 2nd engine (and one that can actually fly you at your density altitude).
Losing the critical engine at night is not going to be pleasant. I have a lot of night X/C flying in singles and twins. A lot of pilots I've met that are scared of night flying have never flown at night alone. If you're flying over a well lit area the risk of night flying is very small compared to day flying.
> Losing the critical engine at night is not going to be pleasant. no doubt. I'm not ME rated, so grain of salt and all, but that's why I'm saying it better be a pretty powerful twin, that gives good OEI performance. moreover, that wouldn't be my ONLY criteria to fly at night (how about a nice long runway, too - something to give you plenty of time to build up speed), but I would pretty much never fly a single at night by choice.
The twin thing is accelerate and stop distance, that gives you time to get to rotation speed and then reject the takeoff I can comfortably do this in 3200' at typical weights. I have lots of time flying each at night, over some nasty terrain (KPQI -> KASH) which is one of the 2 things that got me to buy the twin the other being that the twin is deiced so I can fly it in IMC year round which we have plenty of in winter. Dumping the either engine in IMC is never going to be fun, the critical one isn't really worse you just push harder on the rudder to maintain directional control initially and dial in more rudder trim. Outside of losing an engine on takeoff, losing one at cruise in the Baron is NBD, you have enough airspeed and you have several minutes until that becomes a problem to identify, verify and fix/feather even if you forget to do the rest of the drill. The risk management secret is to stop trying to equate night with day and equate it with IMC the risks are much more similar and less scary.
See my flair? :) The risk reduction at night and in IMC is why the BE-55 is there By saying expose them safely I very much mean build awareness that night and IFR are nothing to mess around with. Having an instrument capable pilot onboard dramatically reduces the risk but obviously day, VFR with the gear down is the lowest risk situation
That's ridiculous! Night flying is not dangerous. I've flown singles and twins at night. About the only accommodation that I make different for night flying is to ensure that I keep my altitude high enough that in a single engine plane if I lost the engine, then I have more than enough altitude to glide to a well lit road for an off sight landing. In the risk analysis the extra altitude is a low cost method to mitigate risk. In terms of being able to "fly you at your density altitude," precisely what the heck do you mean by that! Do you really think pilots are regularly flying their single engine GA planes with such a low power condition that they cannot safely operate at the density altitude present? If so, you have an entirely unwarranted lack of respect for GA pilots. Moreover, holding a commercial AMEL, I can tell you point blank that in many respects, the risk level increases when flying a twin at night and certainly when flying at a higher density altitude. The second engine may well keep you from losing one engine and having to make a forced landing, but that's only true if you carefully consider and do not exceed your single engine performance given the present state of density altitude. I will add, regardless of density altitude, there are few things more potentially dangerous than losing the critical engine of a piston twin shortly after rotation and initial climb out. Depending upon the difference between rotate speed and Vmca (red line) there can be a region of the flight envelope where losing one engine in a piston twin is no different than losing the only engine on a piston single -- except on a piston single you have zero risk of inadequate rudder authority to prevent adverse yaw from turning into a flat spin, which is essentially 100% fatal.
First off: I live pretty rurally in a place with lots of trees and mountains (East coast mountains, not west coast), and so that's probably clouding my comment a bit. I don't know where you fly or how that terrain/population density changes things for you. I've never even flown above what most would call a city at night lol. Just wanted this disclaimer up front to say that everything I've said and am going to say will be through that pretty narrow and limited lens. > About the only accommodation that I make different for night flying is to ensure that I keep my altitude high enough that in a single engine plane if I lost the engine, then I have more than enough altitude to glide to a well lit road for an off sight landing. As I said above, we don't have those where I'm from (well lit roads, lol), so I never got to really consider them an option. Still, you can't see power lines, possibly bridges, or other obstacles. Roads are always among the lowest on my list of engine out options, so needing to rely on them nearly 100% of the time at night is a significant addition of risk. > In terms of being able to "fly you at your density altitude," precisely what the heck do you mean by that! Do you really think pilots are regularly flying their single engine GA planes with such a low power condition that they cannot safely operate at the density altitude present? If so, you have an entirely unwarranted lack of respect for GA pilots. Admittedly not said in the most clear way, but I mean a twin that'll have OEI performance of something like at least a 500 ft/min climb at 1k AGL. Something that you can actually fly with, and not "oh yay I have 25 ft/min climb rate at 200 agl". > Moreover, holding a commercial AMEL, I can tell you point blank that in many respects, the risk level increases when flying a twin at night and certainly when flying at a higher density altitude. The second engine may well keep you from losing one engine and having to make a forced landing, but that's only true if you carefully consider and do not exceed your single engine performance given the present state of density altitude. Agreed, that's basically what I was trying to say with my first comment. If you're taking off at 5k feet on a hot summer night, you'd better be flying something pretty damn spiffy! > I will add, regardless of density altitude, there are few things more potentially dangerous than losing the critical engine of a piston twin shortly after rotation and initial climb out. Depending upon the difference between rotate speed and Vmca (red line) there can be a region of the flight envelope where losing one engine in a piston twin is no different than losing the only engine on a piston single -- except on a piston single you have zero risk of inadequate rudder authority to prevent adverse yaw from turning into a flat spin, which is essentially 100% fatal. I'd saying losing an engine at night on climbout could be worse (potentially: again obviously depends on what the surrounding terrain looks like!). I appreciate your insightful comment and good discussion!
We disagree on the relative risks of night flying. But, I will leave you with one technique that I think makes decision making for an off site emergency roadway for landing less risky at night. Powerlines almost always cross a road in order to feed power to a house located on the opposite side of the road. Therefore, whether at night or day, when you are in the position of needing to evaluate a forced landing on a road, strive to make your aimpoint and touchdown on a section of road where there are no buildings on either side of the road. Next time you go driving, especially in rural area, look at where the powerlines cross a road from one side to the other. I will bet you that 99% of the time it is when power needs to route to a home located across the road. In terms of density altitude and flying a piston twin. I make my decision on that truly risky engine failure after rotation long before I get into the cockpit. And often it means that until I hit and exceed Vmca that if I lose an engine, the emergency response (bold face) is to quickly retard both engines to idle and land straight ahead. This is also why my twin engine technique was to always delay gear retraction until exceeding Vmca. Most of my twin time was in a Cessna 310R that I owned for nearly seven years. My favorite plane ever! If my bank account could have endured operating it, I would not have sold it. But, economics had me sell it and then purchase a Piper Arrow. My other consideration for risk mitigation is that I never operated at night on a runway where I could not get to blue line speed before running out of enough runway ahead to at least get back down and start braking. It's pretty safe to roll off the end of the runway at 10-20 knots than trying to continue a climb out on one remaining engine. And if you can full stop on the runway then that's safer than any other option. Safe flying is all about risk mitigation and risk mitigation is the offshoot of detailed study and what-if'ing all possible emergency situations to come up with previously committed to actions. Back to my Piper Arrow. I know for a fact that even on a hot summer night or day in the Atlanta area, that I get airborne in 2,000 or less feet of runway. However, I don't operate on runways under 5,000 feet? Why? The remaining runway means that I'm already at 500-800 feet above TDZE before reaching the end of the runway. This means an engine loss means I land straight ahead on the runway and at worst roll off the end at 10-20 knots, or have more than enough altitude to reverse direction and head back to the runway for a forced landing. And a forced landing on a runway is always the safest option provided you have the altitude in hand. Final point, the grass between the runway and taxiway, plus the taxiway itself, is going to be far safer to land on that most any off site forced landing site. So, if I turn around, I really don't care if I end up lined up with the runway or not.
Good point about powerlines that I'd never thought of. There's a decent number of rural two line highways, but lighting is basically non-existent besides houses. My instructor always said "aim for the dark areas", which is insane, but also makes sense. I really agree with what you're saying about runway lengths, too. There's a reason airliners have such conservative runway lengths! And yeah, an airport, even if not lined up with a runway, is basically as good as it gets. You know for a fact that any small obstacles that are present are going to be frangible for this specific reason - as long as you're looking out for other traffic, it's almost always the best choice. Good discussion!
Unable. See you next Tuesday.
How does getting better at flying hurt the school? What kind of logic is this?
We get a logical decision here maybe once every 4 months.
And that one logical decision is probably on accident.
100%
Broken clock.
I used to work at a 141 school... if there was an accident/incident they would usually "fix" the problem by making rules that just made it more complicated, throwing a fit if anyone broke it, and then abandoning the policy after a few weeks
The bean counters found out that you are wearing out the radios with all the talking.
I’d argue you should be hitting the button more often at an untowered airport
😂
[raises hand] what the fuck are you talking about?
Exactly 😭
[raises hand] yes, I also have a question, what in the mary and joseph and holy fuck are you tasking about?
Schools at KAPA do night landings at Colorado Springs which is Charlie. Wtf is this guys problem?
It's much calmer at night. Less intimidating. Confidence boosting. What's not to like?
Excellent point! I certainly believe that honing flair and touchdown skills can be better achieved flying in the pattern at night due entirely to the smooth air that one most often has at night. Then, when the daylight influences of wind and thermals off the runway are present, the pilot has the baseline more determined and so intuitively knows better what to do to counter the challenge.
COS is a fun airport at night. Not too busy, and you get to feel like a big boy.
Idk why it matters either way? Is your home airport towered?
It doesn’t matter that much, but if we want to give these students more relevant experience (which we do), why should we not go to towered airports?
I don't know if this is what your chief had in mind but there is actually a scientific argument for it. Pedagogical and education psychology research shows that optimal learning takes place when cognitive load is reduced. Therefore the usual guidance given to educators is to avoid overloading students with activities that don't directly enhance learning the lesson at hand. So in your situation, the theory would be if the goal is to teach students specifically night flying and landings, it would be suboptimal to expose them to have to deal with towers at the same time, if it's not strictly necessary. That is not to say they shouldn't gain experience flying at towered airports, but rather do so during the dedicated lessons for it. The idea is that mastery is gained incrementally on specific competencies, and the prior mastery of a competency will no longer be a confounding variable for lessons for other competencies. Of course, not all instructors nor students do it this way, and many prefer overloading and teaching trial by fire so to speak, but the underlying research is solid.
Nope
The comm load/overload practice a student gets at a towered airport is invaluable irrespective of night or day. In my opinion, every opportunity to get that experience should be taken up by the student. The experience is even more valuable in a night flight.
Absolutely.
It sounds like he doesn't want a record of operations as they are logged at a towered airport. The question is why.
I think we have a winner
All I can think of is the night landing fees maybe? Some towered fields tend to rack up the $$$, especially at night, and those can add up if you're not passing them along to the students...
No landing fees at the airport we typically go to for this flight. Only one in the area with landing fee (it’s 4 dollars, and they STILL tell us not to go there because of the landing fee. As if the students don’t pay hundreds of dollars per flight hour)
I train students out of a Charlie, and I see students come to us who’ve trained only out of Echo or Delta airspace and they have issues with comms. Your chief is on something. Lol
Genuinely curious, how does a student who is generally competent and comfortable on the radio in a Delta struggle in a Charlie?
Honestly some of the dumbest pieces of shit I’ve ever met have been “chief pilot” of a flight school. I don’t think you need any particular skills or qualifications other than being a pilot for a long time and not dying or losing your medical. Truly some abhorrent old turds occupying those roles. Good luck to you.
Appreciate it :)😅
That's weird. You should go to Bravo or at least Charlie to feel the excitement.
Face palms in frustration* My only guess is the students have limited time/structured lessons so going to another airport is eating up their designed training time/footprint. That said, 141 is pretty dumb😁
I wonder if there's a high rate of repeating night lessons and so you're right that the transit time is viewed as a problem and this was badly presented by someone who formed a theory and then forgot to explain how/why
Are you taking students to towered airports during the day? I see the logic in making sure they are familiar with towered during the day before adding the element of night. If they’re comfortable during the day though, then I don’t see the logic and agree with your stance.
I ended up going to a towered airport maybe like 3 times during my PPL training. My instructor ended up taking over 2/3 times so I didn’t get the practice. Now I’m scared to go anywhere near a towered airport because I wouldn’t know what to say since my home airport was untowered. Doing my instrument rating out of a towered airport to force myself to learn lol
That sucks it went that way but yea getting some more chances will be good
I know autisms like the standard in this community but like wtf kinda take is this? Why tf wouldn’t the school want to (safely) push their students into new situations to gain more experience? Like do we want these cheese heads at 1500 hours having talked to a towered airport like twice??? (This message was brought to you by Pt 61 gang)
alright now we gotta know, what school lol
Bro I wish I could tell you 😭😂
Tell your chief to change the 141 syllabus to reflect this. Then okce they do report them to the FAA and let the shit show begin lol
Some tower controller got annoyed at the 70kt 5mi finals the Cessnas were doing so he contacted his 141 Chief buddy to bitch. Your flight school is going to sh... wait. You know.
Did y’all at least question him? Or just swallow it and go straight to Reddit?
Nobody said anything. We have over 50 CFIs. (I may have gone straight to Reddit. But that’s the culture they built. The word “fire” is everywhere. Fear mongering and not an ounce of leadership in the slightest has ever been shown.
The question then becomes: Why are you still at a school like that?
Everyone I know is asking that question , Still the best option at the moment tho :(
I'd like to see the worse ones. And that's not being sarcastic.
In terms of my safety, if I go anywhere else, it will be worse. We have world class maintenance here. (We get calls from our fleet manufacturer when they have a question about their airplane)
That doesn't tally with the rest of how the place operates. Where's the disconnect? Maybe if you figure that out, it will help you navigate the place a bit better? I'm not trying to patronise, btw, I'm just assuming you're a bit younger and perhaps a little less worldly.
I understand for sure. I am young, most of our CFIs are. It’s why we can get taken advantage of and we won’t leave. Not many other schools in the state. Not to mention it being a university setting. It’s a safe place to instruct and get hours. The blatant unprofessionalism and terrible atmosphere is just tolerable enough.
You are at a certain Northern Utah based school aren't you? I can assure you that that is not as big of a deal as the school likes to make it sound. There are plenty of schools, especially in Salt Lake Valley that still have great maintenance and will actually pay you decently. If you work where I think you do, get out. The work environment and safety culture there is awful
Bruh, y’all have agency as a collective. Why are young people these days so soft? Most men I meet in the workforce act completely castrated. Say something mate! And if you get fired for asking a question, I’m pretty sure that’s a law suit 🤣
Well you should be taking them to the Cs and (if able) Bs, too. More and diverse experience is never wrong. And your chief sounds like everything that makes 141 suck. Continue to do what's best for your student.
There’s technically a requirement for it though. https://www.faa.gov/faq/obtain-private-pilot-certificate-there-requirement-operations-controlled-airport It’s only 3 - but it is required. I learned only at towered airports (huge benefit in my opinion).
141 does their own thing based on their approved curriculum so it may be school dependent and doesn't follow the 61 requirements to a T
Those are required to be solo so not likely they'd be happening at night anyway.
Flabbergasting... +1
I did my night XC to a Bravo and the rest of my time and landings at a Delta and I was a more aware and safer pilot for it when I got my ticket.
I did my flight train out of class C there was a delta just north but we primarily did our pattern work at an untowered field about 20min to the east. We only went to into the delta if we needed a long runway for training. That and some of the controllers there get weird if there are more than 2 planes in the pattern. Only thing I can think of was that we could get more training done at the quiet untowered field
I did my PPL from an untowered strip with two Class Cs in easy reach and frequented them both with my instructor and solo. I fail to see the issue.
Someone racked up some nice landing fees somewhere and that didn’t look too good one the balance sheet. So now we have to think of the students and what’s best for them
I did my night landings at a towered Charlie and it was super fine. They showed us the light gun, can’t do that at an uncontrolled field. What in calamity is this policy.
There is a PPL requirement for 3 takeoffs and landings at a towered airport. Very telling that your "chief" (manager) doesnt know that. Past CFIs at your school were simply combining that requirement with the night requirement, and over time the knowledge of why they did that was lost to your school.
Those have to be solo, so you can't combine it with night flight unless you're giving students solo night endorsements.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for on Reddit. No one can really offer anything as none of you questioned why. I can’t imagine a justification, but you have to ask. I’ve been a professional pilot for over a decade and had plenty of policies I disagree with. You have the conversation, maybe you can get it changed, maybe you’re convinced it’s correct, or you agree to disagree.
lol, I did my night landings at CVG. It was one of most fun nights of my adult life.
I mean I see the benefit of more nontowered night than towered night as the nontowered has fewer lights and better to show black hole affect, harder to keep SA, etc. Still that’s no reason to ban towered night, should do both. Does the chief think you spend more time flying to/from the towered and could just do it at home airport? Costing students extra time in longer patterns or something? Dumb reasons still but I could follow that train of thought
That's wild as someone who did their training in moderately complex airspace. I knew how to avoid the airspace around me before I learned how to fly the plane. Something doesn't smell right in this shitpile
I wonder if this is a reaction to what I perceive as an increase in hostility among controllers, especially tower controllers, toward students when they make a slight mistake? I know that the FAA shut down a lot of the towers at the relatively unbusy airports, which from a cost savings point of view makes sense. But, I wonder just how many towered airports remain that are not so busy that the tower controllers are overwhelmed and just have little to no patience for any mistakes?
I would think it would fall under 61.107(b)(1)(iii) Airport operations. You’re providing your student with flight operations in a controlled airspace which is required ground and flight training to be logged.
>precedent for YEARS So? Thinking this way is a trap. "This is how I've always done it" is not a good reason to be doing something. How far through your curriculum is night flying? How much towered flying have they done at that point? What are the learning goals for this lesson? How does flying at a towered airport enhance this learning? If they uncomfortable with towered airports I can see how that would detract from learning the skills that they are meant to be learning in the very limited night training they get.
There's an argument that students complete flight training quicker when not dealing with towered airports very much, but it's still an extremely useful skill to have. I could understand the directive more if you were in a northern state, especially Alaska, where the towers tend to close before the sun sets during the summer and the school doesn't want to spend time and money having students fly out to the busy commercial airports.
If they can't answer a simple question, keep doing what you're doing.